His writes that the Indian hair is purchased from Hindu Temples which get the hair from women who cut it off in an avodah zorah ceremony, which goes something like this:

The woman cuts her hair off as a sacrifice to the Hindu god, Vishnu. The cutting of the hair is done at or in the temple and is a religious procedure itself, like shechting a korbon, and then it is supposed to be burned on an alter in a sacrifice to Vishnu.

The Hindu priests, however, after placing the hair on the alter and perhaps burning some of them, proceed to steal most of the sacrifice hairs and sell them to exporters. From those hairs come the Indian human hair shaitlach. There were also other possible scenarios that he entertained, but at the end of the day, he prohibited all of them.

The rabbonim weren’t doing much about this then, because first of all, shaitel manufacturers started covering it up, claiming that the hair doesn’t really come from Temples, or that it doesn’t really come from India, or that only some of the Indian hair comes form the Temples but the majority does not, or they promise not to get hair form India but they did anyway; and secondly, it was hard to confirm Rabbi Shterenbuch’s story, so and due to the contradictions, confusion, lack of confirmation, and the fact that in those days Rav Shterebuch was a young man with much less clout than he has today, nothing much happened.

Then, about 20 years later, in 1979, a rabbi in Flatbush receieved a call from one of his congregants who read in a business journal that the Indian hair that ends up in wigs comes from Buddhist temples. The rabbi announced in Shul that the shaitlach are prohibited.

Upon hearing this, many rabbonim did some research into the matter and found out that indeed about 70% of the Indian human hair comes from Hindu Temples, mostly in the Madras region, the by-product of a Hindu practice called “tonsure.”

Rav Schwab ZTL was ready to prohibit the shaitlach, as were most other rabbonim in America. The more research was done, the scarier the situation looked.

That is, up to a point. What happened was that when the inquiries got really thorough a totally different picture emerged. There turned up many contradictory stories about the practice and procedure and meaning of the tonsure among the Hindus that were interviewed Some said that the hair cutting is a sacrifice; some said it wasn’t; some said that sometimes it is and sometimes its not; some said that different Hindu sects and even different individuals do it for different reasons; some said that the Hindu hair is holy and therefore used in the religious practice and others said the opposite – that hair is unclean and therefore it is cut off before the woman enters the Temple; others said that really the process is not avodah zorah but the women who get their hair cut think it is, and that itself would prohibit.

I suppose it’s kind of like, l’havdil, if a non-Jew would take it upon himself to find out about let’s say the Jewish rite of circumcision. Who would he ask? An orthodox Jew? Conservative? Reform? A kabbalist? Metzitzah bepeh? Not b’peh? I mean, how many times do we see articles about Judaism in secular sources? And how many times do we laugh at them and say they haven’t got a clue? The same thing seemed to be happening here.

So they contacted swamis, which are like Hindu rabbis, or teachers, or yogis, who referred them to a man who was supposedly the biggest scholar in Hinduism in this country, a Dr. Anand Mohan, professor of religion and philosophy at City College in Queens, NY, and a Hindu priest.

According to Dr. Mohan, the hair cutting practice is not a sacrifice to any god. What happens is, women sometimes make a vow that if either a simcha and/or a tzara happens to them, they will “give away a prized possession” of theirs. Since they are not allowed to cut their hair at all except under certain circumstances, their long, silky hair is their most beautiful and prized possession. So they make a vow to cut it off.

They do not have to do this in a temple, and they can throw the hair in the garbage of they want – it doesn’t matter what happens to it. The point is that they do away with a prized possession. That possession could also theoretically be a gold bangle, or any object of value.

There are other times that they would perform a hair cutting as well, such the first haircut of a baby.

Cutting the hair is kind of a purification process, like taking a shower, except instead of getting rid of dirt, they get rid of hair. In fact, after they cut the hair they take a bath before they enter the temples. And just as dirt would not be considered “holy” even if your bath was a religious practice, so too the hair is nothing but the garbage by-product of this purification process, and is in no way takrovos avodah zorah.

In the olden days, Dr. Mohan said, women indeed used to cut their hair and throw it away. Or they went to the temple to cut their hair, and the temple people threw it away. But then, some the temple people got an idea to make wigs out of the hair anddecided to make a business out of it.

So they stationed barbers outside of the temples where women would come and get their hair cut before they took their baths and entered the temple. The temple trustees – not the priests – take the hair and sell it. Theoretically, the women could sell it themselves, but if they would do that, it wouldn’t be much of a self-sacrifice, since they are making profit on it, and the whole idea is that they have to “give away” something valuable.

Ad kan divrei Dr. Mohan.

His version of the story was confirmed independently by a Diana Eck, professor of Comparitive Religion and Indian Studies in Harvard University. Without hearing what Dr. Mohan said, she provided the exact same report.

The tonsure practice is a preparatory act for worship. It is not a act of worship itself. The primary shrine where this takes place is in Tirupati, in Southern Andhra Pradesh. It is a hilltop shrine. On festival days, 20,000-30,000 pilgrims come to Tirupati.

Rav Moshe Shterenbuch was then contacted, and he said that he really isn’t sure of the information that he received, and that even if it is true, it “quite possibly” – not “for sure” - would create a prohibition of takrovos avodah zorah

All the information – every contradiction, version, and opinion, with the documantation - was collected, and set to Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach ZTL and Rav Elyashev.

They both permitted. Rav Shlomo Zalman, as reported by Rabbi Portnoy, said you can be lenient because since there are several doubts whether the hair in any given shaitel is really avodah zorah, we have a sfek sfeika.

Rav Elyashev wrote a 3 page teshuva, quoting Dr. Mohan by name (although in the printed version they for some reason omitted it), and explaining, among other things, that since the hair is not cut inside the temple in front of any god, and is not done as a manner of worship, it is permitted. He also writes that it doesn’t matter what the woman has in mind as much as it does what the barber has in mind, and he knows why he is cutting the hair, and it is not for idolatry.

This is because in order to constitute takrovos avodah zorah, the cutting of the hair itself has to be a religious ceremony, comparable to shechitah, and so depends on the “shochet” himself.

Rav Elyashev adds, that of course this halachah depends on the facts, and he is relying on the facts as presented to him, so his psak is contingent on the accuracy of those facts.

Rav Sheinberg then also permitted at that time, based on the facts that he researched, primarily through a sefardic “chacham”.

A lot of confusion happened during the research because when people investigated, there were a lot of Indian clerics talking about how the hair is an “offering” or a “sacrifice”, which sounded scary. But it was later found out that they meant “offering” not as in Korbon but as in something you offer – or give; and “sacrifice” was not meant in the context of Korbon but rather “self sacrifice”. So things were scary when they were investigated but when they were thoroughly investigated, things got better.

Rav Moshe Shterenbuch was sent the material as well, but he did not change his psak – he still prohibited. He disagreed with Rav Elyashev regarding certain halachos, plus he said he is not convinced that the Metzius is accurate, and so he does not have enough evidence to permit the safek d’oraisa.

Things were quiet until recently. The Wall Street Journal, last summer, published one of those articles describing the idolatrous practice of Indian tonsure as the source of the hair in American wigs. Just as 15 years ago, the tumult was triggered by an article in a trade magazine, so too now the tumult was triggered by the Journal article.

Slowly things started getting louder. It was discovered that Rav Shterenbuch prohibited, and about a month ago in Eretz Yisroel, Rav Moshe Shterenbuch’s name came up on tzetlach prohibiting the shaitlach again.

Dayan Dunner of London went to Rav Elyashev and obtained a heter to go into the Hindu Temples to see what the story is – kdei lehoros (in order to pasken a shailah) that would be permitted – and he took a trip to India last week, and came back with information that led many Rabbonim to prohibit the shaitlach again.

However, I am not aware of what information is being used, and how thorough of an inquiry was done. Last time this happened, everyone got scared based on the first level of investigation, but later on, when the investigation got pretty intense, we found out it wasn’t a problem.

So far, as far as I can see, Rav Wosner and Rav Karelitz put out a psak saying that “based on the information that we received”, they consider it a maybe avodah zorah situation so you shouldn’t buy any new Indian shaitlach going forward, and try hard to exchange what you already have. They did not say to throw out your shaitlach. They are paskening that they don’t know, and giving over the halchic guidelines on how to act when you don’t know.

Rav Elyashev did not put anything in writing, but Rabbi Efrati, one of Rav Elyashev’s close people, wrote a couple of letters summarizing what he says Rav Elyashev said. I have heard that there are disagreements among Rav Elyashev’s close people regarding the accuracy of those letters, as well as the accuracy of the information that is being given to Rav Elyashev.

In short, I have not heard a psak from any posek so far except that “until we find out the whole story, we should be careful.” Which is fine, but the issue was apparently investigated thoroughly and closed 15 years ago. And just as 15 years ago, this was the initial reaction, and even upon investigation this was the reaction, until we found out that we needed really thorough investigations, which were done, and resulted in a lenient ruling (i.e. from Rav Elyashev and Rav Shlomo Zalman), the question now arises: Is the information that is being given to the Rabbonim (a) accurate and (b) complete? And (c) is it more so than the extensive information that was collected 15 years ago?

And even if there is a problem, how do you know which shaitlach are avodah zorah and which are not? Believability is an entire halachic issue in itself, especially since we are dealing with vested interests of vendors.

Obvisouly this depends on the metzius more than on the halachah. And thus the question is: What is the real metzius. Many Rabbonim, such as Rav Wosner and Rav Karelitz, and perhaps Rav Elyashev, are saying they don’t know. Yet.

The difficulty I am having with this is, the documentation that was done then seems compelling and conclusive. So it brings into question the accuracy and completeness of whatever information is causing doubts now. Especially since the current research was done is a very short time, and experience shows that until you get to the very bottom of the situation, it really does look like avodah zorah.

Avodah zorah means worshipping idols; the sin is yehoreg v'al yaavor. Nobody in the world has even a passing thought that wearing these staitels constitutes worshipping idols. The shailah is totally different.

That is, if the hair that was made into shaitels were nce upon a time sacrificed or used in a prcedure that is comparable to a sacrifice for avodah zorah, then, even using such hair is assur, nto because by doing so you are committing avodah zorah, but rather, because by doing so you are deriving benefit form somethgin that was used as a sacrifice to avodah zorah. This is a laav d'oraiisa, not to be trifled with to be sure, but it is not avodah zorah at all.

As far as the research is concerned, the Gedolim DID rely on the research that was done then - the problem is, now they are hearing adifferent story. The quesiotn is: whose version is correct? If you dont know, then perhaps you have a safek d'oraisa; but if you do know, then perjhaps you have no shailah at all.

There have been more than 2 and more than 3 versions of the story that have already been used in final psakim of these Gedolim. Rav Moshe Shterenbuch writes that he heard from "aidim neemanim" - reliable witnesses - that the procerdure invovles a mizbeach and a real sacrifice. Rav Elyashev's version based on his sources is totally different, both today and 15 years ago. So there you have 3 versions already. The Poskim are relying on what they are hearing, and the quesiotn is, which version of what they are hearing is true?

Do the people who are telling Rav Elyashev what happens understand the procedure fully and correctly, and (b) they are fully andf correctly giving over all the facts necessary, that is one thing. It is possible that there are people who know more and better about the procedure than these rabbis that are providing the informaiton, and/or that these rabbis are makign a mistake or not understanding it. These rabbis are contesting the research that was done 15 years ago - and the Godol listening has to rely on what he is told, and he has to decide on how to deal with the conflicting information.

Yet someone out there may already know first hand which information is correct. And someone may know if what is being told to Rav Elyashev is complete and accurate.

This shailah depends on knowledge of the facts - Rav ELyashev is not an expert on Hinduism and is relying on what he hears.

Liek he did 15 years ago. And like Rav Sheterenbuch did 40 years ago.

The people on this site is anonymous, including myself.

Simcha,

It's not research; its memory. I was around 15 years ago.

Just because something is used in or results from an avodah zorah procedure does not make it assur. For something to be avodah zorah it has to have been worshipped itself, or intended to be worshipped (depending on whether it was a Jew or non-Jew that made it); in order to be considered takrovos avodah zorah the item has to go through specific procedures, which would make it similar to a korbon. What exactly the item has to go through depends on many things, such as whether the proedure is done in a temple, in front of an idol, or outside a temple. Not all acts create takrovos - the act has to be similar to acts of korbonos. They are listed in the Gemora.

In the case of hair, the act that we are looking for in order to prohibit would be cutting of the hair, which is similar to shechitah, as the Gemora says. The hair would have to be cut not merely to get rid of the hair, but the hair itself would have to be invovled in thep rocess, the same way lets say a korbon is sacrificed after it is shechted. This is assuming the procedure is done outside the temple, nto in front of the idol.

So if you cut your hair off in a religious ceremony under the above circumstances, it would not prohibit the hair unless the hair itself was "the korbon", or similar to it. If the idea is to purify yourself by removing the hair, such that the hair itself is garbage, then the hair would not be prohibited. It would be comparable to someone washing himslef in some kind of idolatrous ritual bath - the dirt that comes off him is not part of the avodah zorah ceremony - his being clean is the point.

SO as I said, if your Rav has no idea what the facts are here, then he has to be machmir, or use a different psak. If on the other hand, he is comfortable that the facts are not as those which were presented to Rav Elyashev, or the facts are more than what was presented, such that he is comfortable that there really is no takrovos avodah zorah, even within the halachic bounds of what Rav Elyashev considers takrovos then youre nto disagreeing with a psak - youre agreeing with it! - youre merely saying that the psak does not apply in this case, which the posek himself would agree to.

Again, we are talking when and if your Rav knows that the information given to a posek was faulty.

Please note that no posek in the world who rules based on second hand informaiton swears that the informaiton is correct. His rulign is conditional on the accuracy of the information. And so, when Rav Elyashev himslef wrote in his own Ksav Yad 15 years ago that the shaitlach are permitted, he added that "it is understood" that he is ruling only based on the information given to him. That applied always and every time a posek uses second hand information in a psak, which in cases such as this cannot be avoided.

And since such psakim are undersoood to be conditional on the accuracy of the information provided someone who knows the information is inaccurate is not violating the psak at all.

And therefore, once again, if your Rav does know that the information that was provided is faulty, then he is not violating the psak by permitting the shaitlach.